Suchergebnisse

U Sozopolu je održana od 18. do 23. lipnja 2018. sedma međunarodna konferencija o kartografiji i GIS-u. Organizatori te konferencije bili su Bugarsko kartografsko društvo, Međunarodno kartografskoj društvo i Sveučilište za arhitekturu, građevinarstvo i geodeziju iz Sofije, a suorganizatori Vojna geografska služba i Crveni križ. Na čelu Međunarodnog organizacijskog odbora bio je prof. Milan Konečny, bivši predsjednik ICA-e, a na čelu Lokalnog organizacijskog odbora bila je prof. Temenoujka Bandrova, predsjednica Bugarskoga kartografskog društva. ; The 7th International Conference on Cartography and GIS was held in Sozopol, 18-23 June 2018. The conference was organized by the Bulgarian Cartographic Society, the International Cartographic Association (ICA) and the University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy from Sofia, while the co-organizers were the Military Geographic Service and the Red Cross. Chair of the International Organizational Committee was Prof. Milan Konečný, former president of ICA, and the chair of the Local Organizing Committee was Prof. Temenoujka Bandrova, President of the Bulgarian Cartographic Association.

The 7th International Conference on Cartography and GIS was held in Sozopol, 18-23 June 2018. The conference was organized by the Bulgarian Cartographic Society, the International Cartographic Association (ICA) and the University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy from Sofia, while the co-organizers were the Military Geographic Service and the Red Cross. Chair of the International Organizational Committee was Prof. Milan Konečný, former president of ICA, and the chair of the Local Organizing Committee was Prof. Temenoujka Bandrova, President of the Bulgarian Cartographic Association. ; U Sozopolu je održana od 18. do 23. lipnja 2018. sedma međunarodna konferencija o kartografiji i GIS-u. Organizatori te konferencije bili su Bugarsko kartografsko društvo, Međunarodno kartografskoj društvo i Sveučilište za arhitekturu, građevinarstvo i geodeziju iz Sofije, a suorganizatori Vojna geografska služba i Crveni križ. Na čelu Međunarodnog organizacijskog odbora bio je prof. Milan Konečny, bivši predsjednik ICA-e, a na čelu Lokalnog organizacijskog odbora bila je prof. Temenoujka Bandrova, predsjednica Bugarskoga kartografskog društva.

Hans J. Morgenthau, utemeljitelj realističke teorije međunarodne politike četrdesetih godina 20. stoljeća, donedavno se smatrao pozitivističkim teoretičarom "tvrde" politike moći u međunarodnoj politici. No sve veći akademski interes za njegovo djelo posljednjih godina pokazao je kako je riječ o kompleksnom misliocu koji je ponajprije teoretičar politike. U ovome rada autor prikazuje Morgenthauovu političku teoriju i njezine temeljne pojmove u trima razdobljima njihova razvoja: do Drugoga svjetskog rata, od kraja rata do šezdesetih godina i poslije šezdesetih. Posebno se osvrćući na glavne studije iz svakoga od tih razdoblja, autor nastoji dokazati da je svrha Morgenthauove teorije međunarodne politike bio pokušaj da se politika i političko konstituiraju kao odgovor na duboku društvenu i političku krizu modernog Zapada. Njegova realistička teorija međunarodne politike nije samo akademski pothvat nego i svojevrstan politički projekt. ; Hans J. Morgenthau, who founded realist theory of international politics in the 1940s, has until recently been considered a positivist theorist of crude power politics in international relations. However, in recent years, with rising academic interest for his works, Morgenthau has been seen as a complex thinker and primarily a political theorist. This article aims to show Morgenthau's political theory and its fundamental concepts that run through the three periods of his writing: up to the Second World War, during the post-war period, and in the 1960s. With a special overview of the pivotal studies from each of the above periods, this article will show that the purpose of Morgenthau's theory of international politics is an attempt at constructing politics and the political as an answer to the deep social and political crisis of the modern West. His realist theory of international politics is not just an academic endeavor but also a political project of sorts.

Svrha je rada upozoriti na osobitu važnost suradnje država u borbi protiv krijumčarenja migranata morem, napose u prostoru izvan područja suverenosti obalnih država. U radu se stoga objašnjava međunarodnopravni okvir za aktivnosti država u borbi protiv krijumčarenja migranata morem. Pritom je naglasak stavljen na jurisdikciju država za provođenje prisilnih mjera protiv brodova kojima se krijumčare migranti. Izlaganje polazi od općih pravila koja uređuju jurisdikciju država na otvorenom moru, a danas su kodificirana u Konvenciji Ujedinjenih naroda o pravu mora iz 1982. Potom je fokus usmjeren na posebna pravila u vezi s krijumčarenjem migranata na moru sadržanima u Protokolu protiv krijumčarenja migranata kopnom, morem i zrakom, prihvaćenu uz Konvenciju UN-a protiv transnacionalnog organiziranog kriminaliteta iz 2000., gdje je u čl. 7. Protokola podcrtana upravo dužnost suradnje država stranaka "na sprječavanju i suzbijanju krijumčarenja migranata morem, u skladu s međunarodnim pravom mora". Protokol protiv krijumčarenja migranata u svome članku 17., štoviše, potiče države ugovornice na "sklapanje dvostranih ili regionalnih sporazuma ili operativnih dogovora ili suglasnosti" radi njegove bolje implementacije. U tom su smislu prikazani i evaluirani oblici bilateralne i multilateralne regionalne suradnje država s naglaskom na Mediteran, uzimajući napose u obzir suradnju država članica Europske unije preko Agencije za europsku graničnu i obalnu stražu (Frontex). K tomu, dan je osvrt na Rezoluciju Vijeća sigurnosti UN-a br. 2240 (2015) koja državama članicama UN-a daje izvanredne jurisdikcijske ovlasti na otvorenom moru pred obalama Libije, a služi kao pravni temelj za djelovanje mornaričke operacije EU-a EUNAVFOR Med "Sophia" u okviru Zajedničke sigurnosne i obrambene politike. ; The aim of the paper is to highlight the particular importance of interstate cooperation in combating migrant smuggling by sea, notably in waters beyond the sovereignty of coastal states. In explaining the international legal framework for the activities of states in combating migrant smuggling by sea, emphasis is put on the jurisdiction of states to take enforcement measures against vessels that are engaged in migrant smuggling. First, the general rules concerning the jurisdiction of states on the high seas are discussed, which are codified today in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. Thereafter, the focus is on the special rules regarding migrant smuggling by sea, as comprised in the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air of 2000, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Article 7 of the Protocol indeed emphasizes the duty of states parties to "cooperate to the fullest extent possible to prevent and suppress the smuggling of migrants by sea, in accordance with the international law of the sea." Article 17 of the Migrant Smuggling Protocol furthermore encourages states parties to "consider the conclusion of bilateral or regional agreements or operational arrangements or understandings" with a view to enhancing the Protocol's implementation. In that respect the paper examines and evaluates forms of bilateral and regional cooperation between states with an emphasis on the Mediterranean, and especially considers the cooperation between the member states of the European Union via the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex). In addition, the UN Security Council Resolution 2240 (2015) is analyzed, since it grants the UN member states exceptional jurisdictional powers on the high seas off the Libyan coast and serves as the legal basis for the activities of EUNAVOR Med Sophia, an EU naval operation in the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy.

U radu se analiziraju pojam i pravni položaj nedržavnih aktera kao stranaka nemeđunarodnih oružanih sukoba, s posebnim osvrtom na odredbe zajedničkog čl. 3. Ženevskih konvencija za zaštitu žrtava rata iz 1949. te Dopunskog protokola II uz Ženevske konvencije iz 1977. godine, kao temeljnog međunarodnopravnog okvira koji regulira postupanje svih stranaka u nemeđunarodnim oružanim sukobima. Analizirajući pravni temelj obvezatnosti spomenutih pravnih normi u odnosu na nedržavne aktere autorica upućuje na neravnopravan položaj koji nedržavni akteri imaju u odnosu na države zbog nemogućnosti da formalno postanu strankama navedenih međunarodnih ugovora. U tom kontekstu iznose se prednosti alternativnih mehanizama (sklapanja drugih međunarodnih ugovora, davanja jednostranih izjava ili izjava o obvezivanju) kojima nedržavni akteri mogu izraziti svoju volju i pristanak da budu vezani pravilima međunarodnog humanitarnog prava, što može imati pozitivan učinak i na njihovu svijest o odgovornosti za kršenje tih pravila. ; The author of this paper analyzes the concept and the legal status of non-State actors as parties to non-international armed conflicts. A special emphasis is placed on common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions for the protection of victims of war of 1949, as well as on the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) of 1977 – the fundamental legal framework that regulates conduct of all parties to non-international armed conflicts. Notwithstanding the fact that these international instruments equally bind both States as well as non-State actors as parties to non-international armed conflicts, the legal position of non-State actors, compared to States, is not identical. Moreover, non-State actors cannot become parties to the aforementioned international agreements. In such a context, the author introduces alternative mechanisms (the conclusion of other international agreements, making unilateral declarations or Deeds of Commitment) which non-State actors can use to express their will and consent to be bound by the rules of international humanitarian law. The author concludes that such mechanisms may produce positive effects on non-State actors' awareness of their responsibility for violations of those rules.

U radu se obrađuje koncept mirovnih operacija koji se razvijao u okvirima Ujedinjenih naroda i do danas je najvidljivija aktivnost koja se poduzima s ciljem održavanja međunarodnog mira i sigurnosti. U novije vrijeme u provedbi kompleksnih mirovnih operacija sudjeluju razne međunarodne organizacije i institucionalni dionici, uključujući i civilnu policiju sastavljenu od policijskih službenika iz različitih zemalja. U radu se analiziraju organizacijski oblici i poslovi u kojima sudjeluju policijski službenici kao pripadnici međunarodnih mirovnih operacija. Na primjeru studije slučaja Istočnog Timora istražit će se kakvo je mjesto i ulogu imala policijska komponenta u provedbi sedam međunarodnih operacija različitih tipova i profila na teritoriju ove države u razdoblju od 1999. do 2012. godine. ; This paper analyses the concept of peacekeeping operations which was developed within the United Nations and which has been the most visible activity implemented in order to maintain international peace and security. More recently, the implementation of multidimensional peacekeeping operations includes the cooperation of various international organizations and institutional actors, including the civilian police composed of police officers from different countries. The paper analyses the organizational forms and activities carried out by police officers who are members of international peacekeeping operations. Based on the case study example of East Timor, the analysis will include the position and roles that the police component had in the implementation of seven different types and profiles of international peacekeeping operations on the territory of this country in the period from 1999 to 2012.

Danas u uvjetima globalizacije terorizma, trgovine ljudima i rastuće migracije stanovništva pred međunarodnim snagama UN i međunarodnim policijskim organizacijama stoji niz novih složenih zadataka u okviru borbi protiv zločina protiv čovječnosti. U svom radu navodimo razloge rastuće složenosti tih zadataka i karakteriziramo temeljne smjerove djelovanja međunarodnih policijskih organizacija i međunarodnih snaga UN u uvjetima globalizacije terorizma, trgovine ljudima i ekstremne migracije stanovništva. Posebice razmatramo problem borbe međunarodnih policijskih organizacija protiv trgovine ženama i djecom. ; Today, under the conditions of globalized terrorism, human traffi cking and growing migration of population, international forces of the UN and international police organizations are faced with a series of complex tasks in fi ghtinhg crimes against humanity. In this paper, the authors state reasons for growing complexity of these tasks and characterization of underlying directions of action of international police organizations and international forces of the UN against the eff ects of globalization of terrorism, human traffi cking and forced migration of population. We particularly consider the problem of collision of international police organizations against trafficking in women and children.

U ovom se radu govori o međunarodnopravnom subjektivitetu Bosne i Hercegovine, u pravom smislu riječi. Priznanje državnosti od Ujedinjenih naroda sada već davne 1992. godine, članstvo u velikom broju međunarodnih organizacija, bezbroj programa jačanja institucionalnih kapaciteta, izdašna materijalna i nematerijalna međunarodna pomoć u svim segmentima društva, kao i svi pozitivni društveno-političko-ekonomski procesi implementirani od Daytona do danas nisu rezultirali odgovarajućim pozicioniranjem Bosne i Hercegovine u međunarodnim odnosima, u prvom redu među zemljama jugoistočne Europe. Budući da je taj subjektivitet izuzetno ograničen ili dugoročno neproduktivan, kada se radi o odnosima u regiji, uloga na ''većoj'' međunarodnoj sceni je zanemariva i time se nećemo baviti. Takva pozicija dolazi kao posljedica izuzetno složene unutarnje strukture Bosne i Hercegovine i odnosa između bosanskohercegovačkih političkih subjekata. Geopolitika je prema riječima ''oca geopolitike'' Rudolfa Kjellena praktičan i realističan pristup međunarodnoj politici gdje se poseban naglasak stavlja na ulogu koju za državu imaju teritorij i resursi. Ako ulogu koju neka država može imati u međunarodnoj politici determiniraju njezini resursi, kako to tumači Kjellen, onda Bosna i Hercegovina ima odlične predispozicije da postane važan ''igrač'' prije svega na prostoru jugoistočne Europe, ali i šire. Stvarnost je ipak malo drugačija. ; This paper deals with the international legal subjectivity of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the true sense of the word. Recognition of statehood by the United Nations back in 1992, membership in a large number of international organizations, countless programs of institutional capacity building, generous material and immaterial international assistance in all segments of society, as well as all positive socio-political-economic processes implemented from Dayton until today did not result in an appropriate positioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina when it comes to international relations primarily among Southeast European countries. Since this subjectivity is exceptionally limited or long-term unproductive when it comes to relations in the region, the role on the "bigger" international scene is negligible and we will not deal with it. This position comes as a result of the extremely complex internal structure and the relations between political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to Rudolf Kjellen's "father of geopolitics", Geopolitics is a practical and realistic approach to international politics, where special emphasis is placed on the role of territory and resources for each state. If the position of state in international relations is determined by its resources as Kjellen explains, then Bosnia and Herzegovina has a great predisposition to become an important player, especially in the region of Southeast Europe and beyond. Reality is, however, a bit different.

Rad se bavi analizom reakcija Ujedinjenih naroda na zločin terorizma u obliku inkriminacije terorizma u nizu konvencija prihvaćenih u krilu te organizacije, no još više u obliku moralnih, ali i pravnih sankcija sadržanih u političkim osudama neobvezujućih rezolucija Opće skupštine, posebice tijekom hladnog rata, kao i u obvezujućim sankcijskim rezolucijama Vijeća sigurnosti počevši od 90-ih godina prošlog stoljeća. Pritom rad upućuje na specifičan razvojni proces koji počinje sankcijama prema državama odgovornima za tzv. "državni terorizam", a u posljednjih 15-ak godina sankcije su se gotovo potpuno usmjerile prema terorističkim organizacijama kao nedržavnim akterima te su razvojem međunarodnoga kaznenog pravosuđa otvorile prostor i individualnoj međunarodnoj kaznenoj odgovornosti za taj zločin. ; This paper analyzes the United Nations' reactions to the international crime of terrorism. It focuses on counter-terrorism international conventions adopted within the UN, as well as on moral and political sanctions contained in non-binding resolutions of the General Assembly during the period of the so-called ˝Cold war˝. However, the main focus of this research is on the analysis of legally binding resolutions adopted by the Security Council starting from the 1990s. The analysis of the development of the Security Council's resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter indicates that these resolutions, initially addressed to states responsible for the so- called ˝state terrorism˝, gradually became directed exclusively towards terrorist organizations as non-state actors. In this context, the ˝ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions List˝ of the Security Council is being continuously expanded with names of individuals as well as of other non-state ˝entities and other groups˝ affected by these sanctions. Unfortunately, compared to the beginnig of 2015, when only 70 ˝entities and other groups˝ were listed, in March 2017 their number increased to over 360. These ˝entities and other groups˝, which originate from Tunisia, Mali, Albania, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, the Comoros, Pakistan, Indonesia, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Arabian Peninsula, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, the Caucasus region, Uzbekistan, and even Bosnia and Herzegovina, differ in various ways. Some of the above mentioned ˝entities˝ aim at overthrowing the government of their country, just like ˝classical˝ insurgents as temporary subjects of international law. Other non-state actors' activities are directed towards establishing a new state (for example, Ansar Eddine, Mouvement national de libération de l'Azawad – MNLA in Mali, Sudan People's Liberation Movement – SPLM in South Sudan). International crimes committed by these organizations are not only the object of the resolutions of the Security Council, but they are also in the focus of interest of the International Criminal Court (the ICC). Although the international crime of terrorism is not covered by the jurisdiction of the ICC under the Rome Statute, certain international crimes committed by terrorists or under the auspices of terrorist organizations share some common features with crimes against humanity, which fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Thus, the ICC indirectly contributes to the sanctioning for the crime of terrorism. Further evolution of the international criminal justice, both through the jurisprudence of the ICC and other ad hoc international and ˝hybrid˝ courts, will most certainly contribute to the development of international criminal liability of individuals for the crime of terrorism.

Predmet rada je analiza granica dopuštenosti državne upotrebe oružane sile kao reakcije na terorističke napade koje počine terorističke skupine kao nedržavni akteri. Poseban naglasak stavljen je na međunarodnopravni okvir koji određuje pretpostavke za upotrebu oružane sile u ostvarivanju prava na samoobranu, čije tumačenje u posljednjih nekoliko godina u teoriji i praksi podliježe modifikacijama kojima se želi opravdati upotreba oružane sile u samoobrani protiv nedržavnih aktera, dakle, preko granica određenih međunarodnim pravom. Autorica se u radu kritički osvrće na spomenuto proširivanje tumačenja prava na samoobranu i predlaže primjenu drugih, u međunarodnom pravu utemeljenih mjera kojima države, predvođene Vijećem sigurnosti Ujedinjenih naroda, mogu odgovoriti na terorističke napade. ; The subject of this paper is an analysis of the limitations of the legality of the use of armed force by States as a response to terrorist attacks committed by terrorist groups as non-State actors. A special emphasis is placed on the international legal framework which prescribes prerequisites for the use of armed force in the implementation of the right to self-defence. Modifications in the interpretation of the right to self-defence, initiated by a rising number of terrorist attacks, tend to justify the use of armed force in self-defence against non-State actors, which is not in accordance with international law. The author critically examines the expanded interpretation of the right to self-defence and proposes that other instruments be applied in accordance with the international legal framework, which States led by the UN Security Council can use in response to terrorist attacks.

Cjelokupno predratno, ratno i poratno vrijeme obilovalo je mnoštvom rasprava, veoma različitih promišljanja i brojnih prijedloga različitih uređenja države Bosne i Hercegovine, i pronalaženjem onoga što bi osiguralo njezinu opstojnost, cjelovitost, samo-održivost i učinkovitu funkcionalnost te zadovoljstvo, jednakopravnost i miran suživot tri konstitutivna naroda, nacionalnih manjina i svih njezinih građana. Na tom pitanju sukobljavali su se različiti domaći i međunarodni interesi i ogledala pera mnogih uglednih stručnjaka iz zemlje i svijeta. Ipak, rješenje koje bi zadovoljilo sve, a osobito tri etno-nacionalne politike i politiku međunarodne zajednice, do danas nije pronađeno. Daytonsko rješenje i po njegovoj konstrukciji, a i dvadesetdvogodišnjoj primjeni, nije se pokazalo zadovoljavajućim i konačnim. Naprotiv, država opstaje kao polu-protektorat pod nadzorom i upravom međunarodne zajednice i njezina visokog predstavnika, ali se nalazi u krizi koja se od jednog do drugog događaja povremeno povećava ili smanjuje. I, permanentno traje. Očito je svima jasno da ovakav njezin ekscentričan i neučinkovit ustavno-pravni i administrativno-teritorijalni ustroj nikoga ne zadovoljava, niti jamči miran, siguran i izvjestan europski put. Preustroj države BiH zato je nasušna potreba i svojevrsna nužnost, jer ovako ustrojena i konfliktima bremenita država nije za Europu. Nakon višegodišnjih vlastitih znanstvenih proučavanja, javno testiranih u velikom broju referata na domaćim i međunarodnim skupovima, obznanjenim znanstvenim člancima u brojnim časopisima, objavljenih pet knjiga o Bosni i Hercegovini te drugih javnih istupa, autor je došao do vlastitoga uvjerenja da se do zajedničkoga rješenja može doći samo međusobnim otvorenim dijalogom, uz posredovanje i medijatorsku ulogu međunarodne zajednice i njezinih stručnjaka, te da bi najbolje rješenje za otvoreno "hrvatsko pitanje", ali ujedno najpovoljnije kompromisno rješenje za sve bilo - federativna država Bosna i Hercegovina s tri republike i tri razine lokalne samouprave. Alternativa je životarenje u postojećem, totalni protektorat, ili raspad države s obveznim i neizbježnim međusobno trajnim sukobljavanjem. Kao osoba koja je proživjela dva rata i kao znanstvenik s preko četrdeset godina iskustva, autor u radu ukazuje na ključne uzroke kriznoga stanja, moguće katastrofalne posljedice zadržavanja postojećeg, upitnost uspješnosti europskoga puta i sigurnost europske perspektive države, njezinih naroda i građana. ; The pre-war time in Bosnia and Herzegovina, just like the war and post-war time were abundant with debates, different views and numerous proposals for the state structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was supposed to secure the country's survival, integrity, self-sustainability and efficient functioning, as well as peaceful co-existence of the three constitutive nations, national minorities and all the citizens. Various local and international interests were conflicting in the debates. However, no matter how many prominent local and international experts gave their contribution, a win-win solution has not been found yet, the one which would be satisfying for everyone, especially for the three ethnical national policies and the policy of the international community. Today, after twenty-two years of applying the Dayton solution, it is obvious that it is not satisfactory and may not be considered final indeed. On the contrary, with this solution, the country has been functioning as a half-protectorate, under supervision and management of the international community and the High Representative, appointed by the international community, however in a permanent, deeper or somewhat less deep crisis, but always in crisis. Obviously, this eccentric and entirely inefficient constitutional-legal and administrative-territorial structure is not satisfying for anyone, neither it may lead the country onto a peaceful, safe and certain accession path to Europe. Therefore, reorganisation of the state is an absolute must and also a duty, because the country with such state structure and torn with conflicts is not suitable for Europe. After years of scientific researches, participation in numerous local and international scientific conferences, numerous published articles, five published books on Bosnia and Herzegovina, the author came to a conclusion that the best solution for all involved parties may be found only through an open dialogue, with support and mediation of the international community and its experts. The best solution for the open "Croat issue", but also the best compromise solution for everyone would be a federative state of Bosnia and Herzegovina with three republics and three levels of local self-government. The only two alternatives to this solution are either to merely vegetate in the current situation, resp. to keep the full protectorate or the dissolution of the state, which necessarily involves permanent conflicts. The author, who survived two wars and has more than forty years of experience in scientific work, points out to main causes of the actual crisis, potential disastrous consequences of keeping the status quo, disputability of the success of the accession path to Europe and security of the perspective of a European state and its nations and citizens.

Polazište ovog rada nedavni je prijepor suvremenih realista oko aktualne dvojbe je li vanjskopolitička doktrina američkog predsjednika Donalda Trumpa realistička. Autor ukazuje da je navedena polemika posljedicom zastarjelog, tautološkog, ali još uvijek i neprevladanog dualističkog diskursa u teorijama međunarodnih odnosa, koji dijeli teoriju i vanjskopolitičku praksu na dva dominantna pravca: realizam i liberalizam. Na temelju dosadašnje teorijske kritike novog realizma, ili neorealizma, članak potvrđuje da ovaj suvremeni realistički pravac epistemološki ne pripada tradiciji realizma na koju se poziva, nego se svojim predodžbama o moći, državi i međunarodnom sustavu utemeljuje u političkom idealizmu: pravcu mišljenja koji se redovno pripisuje liberalima I kojemu je tradicionalni, ili "klasični" realizam bitno suprotstavljen. Analizirajući glavne podudarnosti između pretpostavki neorealizma i načela Trumpove doktrine, ovaj rad navodi na zaključak da Trump nije realist nego protuliberalni idealist. Pojam "protuliberalni idealizam" prikladniji je za razmatranje aktualne američke vanjske politike u kontekstu njene hegemonijske pozicije u liberalnom međunarodnom poretku. ; The article's initial motive is the recent controversy among contemporary realists, who questioned the supposed realism of US president Donald Trump's foreign policy doctrine. The author argues that the polemic is a consequential outgrowth of outdated, tautological, and yet still actual binary discourse, that divides international theory and foreign policy practice on Realism and Liberalism. Referring to the established critique of Neorealism, the article argues that Neorealism does not in epistemic terms belong to the tradition of Realism, to which it is a self-proclaimed successor. On the contrary, with its notions of power, state and international system it is established in political idealism: the tradition of thought that is conventionally attributed to Liberalism, and to which "classical" Realism was fundamentally opposed. By analyzing evident congruence between principles of Neorealism and Trump's America First doctrine, the article concludes that Trump is not a realist, but illiberal idealist. His idealistic nationalist world-view, when translated into foreign policy objectives, is in stark contrast to the professed principles of Realism. Furthermore, the concept of illiberal idealism offers an analytical framework for further analysis of present US foreign policy in the context of its hegemonic position in the Liberal International Order.

Tema disertacije je analiza djelovanja putem pravnopolitičkih mehanizama međunarodne zajednice, a prvenstveno misleći Europske ekonomske zajednice (kasnije Europske unije) na sprječavanje sukoba i postizanje mira na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije u vremenu od 1990. g., tj. od trenutaka prvih znakova početaka krize, pa sve do kraja oružanih sukoba/ratova 1995. g. i potpisivanja Daytonskog mirovnog sporazuma. Upravo vrijeme prvih znakova krize i početaka prvih oružanih sukoba na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije bilo je vrijeme kada je Europska ekonomska zajednica stvarala Zajedničku vanjsku i sigurnosnu politiku. Ujedno jugoslavenska kriza odvijala se paralelno s stvaranja nove ujedinjene Europe koja se našla pred izazovom dokazivanja uloge regionalnog i globalnog igrača u kreiranju svjetske politike, te u dokazivanju mogućnosti samostalnog rješavanja eventualnih sukoba na svom teritoriju bez upliva politike Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. Jugoslavenska kriza reflektirana kasnije kroz oružane sukobe i ratove predstavlja je test institucionalnom sistemu dotadašnje i buduće ujedinjene Europe, te je ista bila indikator, smjernica institucijskom razvoju Europske ekonomske zajednice, a uslijed same činenice nemogućnosti implementacija usvojenih politika/odluka kojima bi rješila krizu i spriječila sukobe. Oružani sukobi/ratovi i sama kriza na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije s vremenom je bila u suprotnosti s duhom buduće ujedinjene Europe nakon pada Berlinskog zida, a nemogućnost uporabe rješenja za kraj krize, oružanih sukoba i postizanje mira povlačilo je za sobom i pitanje održivosti takve zajednice. Prekrajanje granica silom od strane lokalnih politika na području bivše Jugoslavije s ciljem osiguranja življenja jednog naroda u jednoj državi bili su u suprotnosti s načelom uti possidetis iuris i vladavinom prava na koje se u stvaranju suvremene Europe nakon II. Svjetskog rata ista pozivala. Upravo kroz navedeno načelo međunarodnog prava, Europska ekonomska zajednica, a i kasnije Europske unija, kao i svi ostali dionici međunarodne zajednice uključeni u sprječavanju sukoba i postizanje mira na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije svojim pravnopolitičkim mehanizmima navedeno načelo koje predstavljalo razloge/polazište svih oružanih sukoba na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije nisu znale i mogle zaštiti. Činjenica djelovanja međunarodne zajednice, prvenstveno Europske ekonomske zajednice/Europske unije u skladu s izvorima europskog i međunarodnog javnog prava, te koristeći pravnopolitičke mehanizme koji su upravo proizlazili iz navedenih izvora, a bez mogućnosti fizičke, stvarne primjene istih prema onima na koje se odnosilo, kao i neaktivnost u angažiranju od početaka sukoba od strane Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, stvarali su subjektivni dojam da ne postoji politička volja oko temeljnih pitanja ključnih za sprječavanje sukoba i postizanje mira, kao ni volja zaštite međunarodnog prava na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije. Upravo željom za globalnom dominacijom u novom svjetskom poretku, kao i činjenica dokazivanja Europi da ne može samostalno upravljati i rješavati krize na svom području, Sjedinjene Američke Države preuzele su aktivnu ulogu u rješavanju krize koristeći pravnopolitičke mehanizme u skladu s odredbama međunarodnog javnog prava, čime su spriječile daljnje sukobe/ratove i postigle mir. Političkom reaktivacijom u odnosu na prostor bivše Jugoslavije, Sjedinjene Američke Države jasno su dokazale svoju političku dominaciju u rješavanju i "upravljanju krizom" na tlu Europe, a ujedno su očuvale svoj i kredibilitet NATO-a i same Europske unije. ; The topic of this dissertation is the analysis of acting through legal and political mechanisms of an international community, namely the actions the European Economic Community (later known as the European Union) had undertaken to prevent conflicts and achieve peace on the territory of the former Yugoslavia from 1990 and the first signs of a crisis up to the end of the armed conflicts/wars in 1995 and the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. Just when the first signs of the crisis and the first armed conflicts began to appear in the former Yugoslavia, the European Economic Community created the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Also, the Yugoslav crisis took place in parallel with the creation of a new united Europe that faced the challenge of proving to be a regional and global force in the creation of the world policy, as well as proving its ability to independently resolve possible conflicts within its territory without interference from the policy of the United States. The Yugoslav crisis, later manifested in armed conflicts and wars, was a test of the institutional system of the former and future united Europe, a guideline for the institutional development of the European Economic Community, and an indicator of the inability to implement the adopted policies/decisions that would resolve the crisis and prevent conflicts. Armed conflicts/wars and the crisis in the former Yugoslavia were eventually contrary to the spirit of the future united Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the inability to find a solution to end the crisis and armed conflicts, as well as to achieve peace, raised the issue of sustainability of such a community. Redrawing the borders perforce by the local policies in the former Yugoslavia with the aim to ensure the settlement of one nation in one state was contrary to the principle of uti possidetis iuris and the rule of law relied upon by the modern Europe after World War II. The European Economic Community, and later the European Union, as well as all the other members of the international community engaged in conflict prevention and achieving peace in the former Yugoslavia, did not know how to use their legal and political mechanisms to protect the aforesaid principle which represented the reasons/starting point for all the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. The action of the international community, primarily the European Economic Community/European Union in line with the sources of European and international public law, using the legal and political mechanisms stemming from the aforesaid sources, without the possibility of their actual implementation, as well as the USA's decision not to engage in the conflict from the beginning, created a subjective impression that there is no political will to tackle issues crucial for conflict prevention, achieving peace, and protecting international law in the former Yugoslavia. It was the desire for global domination in the new world order and the desire to show Europe the independence in managing and addressing the crises in its territory that enabled the USA to take an active role in addressing the crisis by using legal and political mechanisms in line with international public law provisions, which prevented further conflicts/wars and ensured peace. Political reactivation in the former Yugoslavia enabled the USA to clearly demonstrate its political domination in "crisis management" in Europe, whilst preserving its own credibility as well as the credibility of NATO and the European Union.